 鲜花( 634)  鸡蛋( 5)
|
Originally posted by 一直很笨 at 2005-2-20 10:44 PM:, b% D/ R6 Y, w6 |, `6 a
最后给你看一下，你要的文明国家判决终止病婴治疗的证据
1 x7 e6 B3 |3 E/ F. I9 h. Y省得再说中国父母自私，社会道德水准低! f! Q/ e" {. o( ^" s: ^3 W5 F" c
( F# s% d% G8 d0 Q6 R5 v4 F
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A British high court judge yesterday ruled that Baby Charlotte, born ...
/ o' v u4 y- `8 q谢谢你的转贴，我特此找到了原文，这个案件是一个涉及安乐死的话题。以下是我的看法：
) o! u4 q4 e0 F( [! ^& b4 m$ R" j( O9 t. `
1）首先请注意：案件里的小女孩是因为医生的意见提出停止治疗，而不是父母。孩子的父母本人要求医生尽一切可能挽救女儿生命，父母说他们的女儿是个战斗者，不会放弃任何生存下来的机会。我想一个11月大的女孩子，是不会表达自己如何战斗的，真正的斗士是孩子的父母，也正如楼主的故事里，真正的懦夫是父母一样。
- T. S( N$ p9 ]& r, r! E--Despite her condition, her parents, Darren and Debbie Wyatt, of Portsmouth, England, want doctors to continue doing everything possible to save her life.
8 F8 u. l1 ^& e# v4 B--Charlotte's parents say the little girl is a "fighter" who should be given every chance.
" N4 _( I- X6 Q0 q3 f+ [9 z--Richard Stein, the Wyatt's attorney, told the London Guardian that the couple is "very upset."
& {+ R/ }0 i) d4 t W孩子父亲的话很感人：“当你开始爱一个人的时候，你不能就把象个坏鸡蛋一样扔掉，然后说你还有得到另一个蛋。“父亲承认，当孩子的真正痛苦的时候来林的时候，可能不得不改变主意。他说：“但是我相信，现代医学总有一些方法让她继续（无痛苦）活下去，哪怕只有几年的时间，起码她能走出去，看看外面的树或者别的什么东西。“ 我尤其赞同最后一句，哪怕身体上的痛苦最终来临，不得不选择安乐死的时候，起码她又一个机会感受这个世界，走到外面看看树或者别的什么东西。她作为一个生命降临，父母希望她感受片刻的生命，得到生命的意义。2 R+ M& m' _4 V' f/ {6 I! l; b
--I have been very moved by the comments of Charlotte's father, Darren. "When you get to the stage when you grow to love someone," he said, "you can't just throw them away like a bad egg and say that you will get a different egg." He admitted that, if the time came when his baby was really suffering, he would have to change his mind. "But I believe there are things in medical science to help her carry on, even for a couple of years, and she can even go outside and see the trees and whatever."9 g4 [ C) T* c- ? D
8 e+ P" F9 k3 z, F8 ?$ T/ }
2）案例和楼主故事有许多不同的背景资料
7 |' Q' ]$ R6 W% _- L, X小女孩她具有脑损伤，肺部脾部损伤，其病态是急性的，需要立即aggressive medical treatments， 法庭接受的是医生的医疗意见,认为对她的救治无效，且另她受罪。 n% H7 I; c3 `8 Q! n) @' e3 S; J5 O
Charlotte Wyatt was born three months premature and has never left the hospital. She has brain damage and injuries to her lungs and kidneys I- H) A3 Y. D# z
The Portsmouth trust applied to the court for permission to allow her to die only because it believed, on the best medical advice, that keeping her alive was futile, and causing her suffering
0 B, y9 f/ i. ?% N3 J而楼主故事里的孩子的情况是可以接受手术治疗的，通过手术，可以延续其生命，甚至得到解救。
6 M' A3 g8 b6 r, S4 W一个是医生认为救治无效，另一个是父母放弃延续生命的手术。
7 C& ?* O$ Y/ |, d5 f; x g5 d' l5 L' @. |# Z
. b" E7 ^* I A9 ]/ o W4 U9 ^3）我猜你没有把这个新闻连接看完，这则新闻所传递的观点，恰恰是和我一致的。转贴如下,希望你看了能有启发：
" ^9 x; A, s/ p+ F% e6 a
9 L* t- B$ q8 C( |" I FLondon, England (LifeNews.com) -- A British high court judge yesterday ruled that Baby Charlotte, born three months premature, should be euthanized without further attempts to save her life through aggressive medical treatments. The decision has pro-life groups up in arms.
3 D* p5 H6 F2 A/ P) Q& YCharlotte Wyatt was born three months premature and has never left the hospital. She has brain damage and injuries to her lungs and kidneys.$ H* T5 L& ?+ ^; W5 O9 o
& _: Y) [8 A- V! x: x2 ~
Despite her condition, her parents, Darren and Debbie Wyatt, of Portsmouth, England, want doctors to continue doing everything possible to save her life.
5 J9 t8 n$ {: ^$ j7 q; C' O% ]; K; d6 ?
But, Justice Hedley said the case evoked "fundamental principles that undergird our humanity" and ruled that doctors should be allowed to discontinue treatment, causing her death.% Y& l4 [2 A( r5 W2 s3 _6 n j
8 g: G/ k6 B- d% I! WHedley said it was in Charlotte's best interests to allow her to die "a good death."6 n, y. j/ J5 S% f
9 W1 V* |/ s+ N# }, UBut, pro-life groups say that kind of language is used by euthanasia activists who want euthanasia and assisted suicide legalized in the European nation.( V& C! @' H( v7 K
( Z* Z9 [: v' u4 [0 I: Q- cNuala Scarisbrick of the British pro-life group LIFE warned that the decision takes the country down the slippery slope of determining "quality of life."/ \" y$ ?5 O- r# O) V& H, k
$ X# M2 {& L- ?* C% C
"Doctors have no training in measuring 'quality of life,'" Scarisbrick said. "No one has. It is a subjective and dangerous catchphrase of the eugenics and euthanasia lobbies."$ v# V' Y$ h% y- F) p& L
3 \' ^+ T% W$ ?4 l"Doctors have a duty to care for all patients, not to pick and choose according to some arbitrary and unscientific criterion," said Scarisbrick.
' `% F+ V' A( b$ G7 {' v. `! [- _8 v6 S& g
Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust took the case to the high court when doctors refused to provide further treatment for Charlotte, whose first birthday is in two weeks. Charlotte's parents say the little girl is a "fighter" who should be given every chance.
5 f$ M0 p" o& W7 ~2 G+ i4 t
: A z1 [2 f7 k3 w( e# hRichard Stein, the Wyatt's attorney, told the London Guardian that the couple is "very upset."$ }. H2 f: u4 j5 \9 n' ]
) R' Z8 ]" _) e9 m! |3 `8 m& e; ^2 _
"They have asked me to say that they feel it was most important that the issues in the case have been aired in public because, as a result, everyone has had an opportunity to consider the extremely difficult issues faced by them and the numerous other families in similar positions," Stein said.7 z; E2 y: i. |9 `3 y
. Q3 Q$ a' s# q4 g& E+ _6 i
Mrs. Wyatt, is pregnant with the couple's third child and they have a son, Daniel, nearly two. They said they will not appeal the decision.
/ y# t6 w: }4 g( L7 t; ?9 c3 y3 H$ y1 t3 G9 N0 s, L
Related web site: T9 [: n; q O
Baby Charlotte decision puts England on Slippery Slope 0 z% `0 B6 Q& [) _4 B
9 w3 }' e3 B2 QOne person who was not consulted over the question of whether Charlotte Wyatt should be kept alive or left to die was Charlotte Wyatt herself. She could not express a view, of course, because she is only 11 months old, and desperately ill. # v, R# }" g- k2 Q) e
3 u0 V, q+ |" e; v: W
2 u9 E P7 B h9 I1 b/ q, P
( i3 ]5 v) U$ c6 u ~. ]( U
2 m5 s n/ w8 ~4 J
All those involved in the case agreed, however - her parents, her doctors, the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and the judge - that Charlotte's interests were the ones that mattered. The only question was: which of them knew best where her interests lay?
* i$ F4 U2 g. g9 j4 ~: {1 o1 W" G k7 N1 r: c5 o+ ?, N3 f
I do not doubt for a moment the determination of all the parties to do what was best for the baby. It would be foolish to pretend that NHS trusts do not have to think about money - indeed, they have a duty to think about it. But I fully accept that the cost of keeping Charlotte alive in hospital was not a consideration in this particular case.7 x: m" M2 D8 c& G; y
( j4 W. A) T. \' o7 cThe Portsmouth trust applied to the court for permission to allow her to die only because it believed, on the best medical advice, that keeping her alive was futile, and causing her suffering. In short, everyone involved has been driven by the purest motives from the start.5 O* Q% J U7 P3 r5 z
: ]: F1 P L v2 L* W) `
When I say, therefore, that the trust was wrong to seek legal permission to let Charlotte die, against the wishes of her parents - and that the judge was wrong to find in the trust's favour - I am not accusing anybody of wickedness.$ [/ d4 q& X0 I
2 O& L8 d I+ HThe truth is, however, that Charlotte is far from being the only person whose interests are engaged in the case on which Mr Justice Hedley ruled yesterday. The moment when the law becomes involved in an agonisingly difficult decision like this is the moment when it affects every one of us.
* ?+ ^4 T- X X8 g8 K5 J! q) f* A9 E7 l* I7 h9 H" ?
I see great dangers in the judge's decision to overrule Charlotte's parents and allow her doctors to let her die. Rightly or wrongly, it will be seen to have established the principle in English law that some lives are worth saving, and others aren't.
4 ^* g) H* f' H, v# i8 C1 ?/ Y' p9 ]
However carefully Mr Justice Hedley might have qualified his judgment, insisting that it applied only to Charlotte's particular case, the damage has been done. The idea has been sown in the minds of money-conscious NHS trusts that it is up to them to decide who should live or die, according to a doctor's assessment of his patient's "quality of life".5 B3 }; D5 a [
z: B" ~' U7 U" U0 E4 hNow, I am quite grown-up enough to realise that doctors have been making this sort of decision since the dawn of medical science. When they are convinced that a case is hopeless, they stop trying to save the patient's life and strive only to make his passing as comfortable as possible. , Q" L' \' e' I
$ F* r7 S; h& C* KIt says on my own father's death certificate that he died of cancer. In fact, I am pretty sure that the immediate cause of his death was the huge dose of painkillers that he was given shortly before it.5 L) Y" Y9 I; ^ x" P
* @' {% v! O, v: V2 q% m
But I would not dream of complaining about that. My father would certainly have died of cancer within a matter of hours, had his doctor not taken the decision to increase his dose of painkillers. If she had withheld the drugs, the only difference to him - apart from perhaps a few more hours of life - would have been a much more painful death.
! M) P) q- [1 e1 K8 G6 {( H2 ^* {$ y1 k
The point is that it was not in order to hasten my father's death that the doctor prescribed the painkillers (although she would have known that they would probably have that effect). She did it in order to ease his pain. This may sound like a pedantic distinction, but it strikes me as a very important one.
. A5 U8 x. o+ p2 Y+ U, c3 m/ V% W" @7 P" C! D
Doctors should not be in the business of hastening death. Their job is to save lives and to make them more comfortable.
: F* e- _8 A) {2 V6 c: ?2 V
& q9 Y7 ^; q1 A7 M6 l: P0 LI do not pretend to know about Charlotte Wyatt's "quality of life". All I will say is that her parents are quite as well qualified as her doctors to judge how much she is suffering. God knows, they have sat long enough by her bedside. They reckon that she is a fighter, and that she is in with a chance.
- f# P6 Z9 h% y. u5 ?% ^
. d" E, g7 Y& H8 w5 aI have been very moved by the comments of Charlotte's father, Darren. "When you get to the stage when you grow to love someone," he said, "you can't just throw them away like a bad egg and say that you will get a different egg." He admitted that, if the time came when his baby was really suffering, he would have to change his mind. "But I believe there are things in medical science to help her carry on, even for a couple of years, and she can even go outside and see the trees and whatever."
/ B9 H' i- s+ A; R, L( ~- i& o
& J& z4 G7 g6 @/ u. O9 }Mr Wyatt doesn't sound to me like a man who would wilfully allow his daughter to suffer, for his own selfish reasons, by striving officiously to keep her alive. But, as I say, I don't know.. Y9 b8 s M: f. @* |
& M" a8 S% ?) W. vWhat I do know is how very sad it is that the High Court has become involved. In my view, these things were much better settled in the old way, on the commonsense agreement of doctors and loved ones, without too many questions asked. The only hard-and-fast principle that I would recommend is: when in doubt, opt for life.
- }) K5 d. D* Z4 }5 w3 \+ N3 Y0 {- O" W4 `4 g6 e
We have already seen, in Holland, what happens when the law intervenes to allow doctors to hasten death. Four years ago, the Dutch parliament voted by 104-40 to legalise euthanasia. One immediate effect of that was that it fundamentally changed the relationship between doctors and their patients. Thousands of Dutch people began to carry documents, begging their doctors not to kill them if they fell ill.- l3 I4 p$ k" S/ `
T% W- I: _) s3 ]% c( N2 hAs the American lawyer Alexander Capron put it: "I never want to wonder whether the physician coming into my hospital room is wearing the white coat of the healer or the black hood of the executioner."/ {9 L% m: U: @, a
2 c! z; Y, S, x5 f4 a, V; U
Another effect of the Dutch legislation has been the decline of palliative medicine in Holland. Far less effort is made now than before to keep old people alive and comfortable. Meanwhile, it has become practically a rule that no attempt should be made to revive babies born after only 23 or 24 weeks of gestation - even though medical science offers more and more of them a good chance of survival. # L& t d$ p+ I0 _% o& ~
( t, q: e( {, h4 Z0 B8 e) |* \1 N
The Dutch law, framed with the noble intention of relieving the suffering of the terminally ill, has had the effect of devaluing human life for everyone in Holland.
" g, u3 s2 u/ C7 ^# N
k7 C) r, s1 h- |/ |* ]) ?I realise that there is an important distinction between allowing doctors to kill their patients and merely permitting them not to revive them. But it is a slippery slope that we are treading. I wish that Mr Justice Hedley had opted for life. |
|
楼主: annie
狗仔卡
发表于 2005-2-20 17:53
显身卡
发表于 2005-2-20 20:10
发表于 2005-2-21 04:00
